CHD DEVLOPERS LTD Vs. RAJINDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award dated november 14,2005 passed by the Labour Court in I. D. No. 329/2003.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for deciding the present petition are as under:-As per the petitioner/management, the respondent/workman was appointed on July 1, 2001 on probation initially for a period of one year vide an appointment letter of the even day. As per the respondent/workman he was appointed on July 1, 2000 but appointment letter was issued on July 1, 2001 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 4100/ -. As per the petitioner the services rendered by the respondent were not satisfactory and consequently his period of probation was not extended. The respondent was thus terminated from his service vide letter dated June 29,2002. As per the respondent he availed leave from june 19, 2002 to June 25, 2002 and during this period he fell sick and treatment continued upto july 11,2002 and when he reported for duty on july 12,2002 he was orally refused duty and his services were terminated by the management. The respondent raised an Industrial Dispute which was later on referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the management failed to prove that the workman was working on probation; it was further held that the respondent could not join his duty as he fell sick. It was also held by the Tribunal that in the interest of industrial peace and harmony the workman should be paid a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- instead of reinstatement and back wages. Aggrieved with the said award the management has preferred this petition

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the respondent was appointed on probation for a period of one year w. e. f. July 1, 2001 and appointment letter issued in his favour was duly proved on record by the petitioner management as Exhibit MW 1/1. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the respondent workman were terminated before the completion of his probation period through letter dated June 29,2002 and therefore the termination of the respondent cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified. Counsel further submits that services of the respondent were not found up to the mark and therefore the petitioner was well within its rights to take a decision not to extend the probation period or to dispense with the services of the respondent during the probation period of one year. Counsel further submits that the respondent refused to accept the said letter dated June 29, 2002. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said facts were duly proved on record by the petitioner through the evidence of their manager whose testimony remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the respondent/workmen during cross-examination.